|
Re: How the IPnG effort was started
2004-11-18 02:37:28
Good analysis (however there are probably 9 possibilities if a "newbox" was
to be proposed by some smart person). This scenario is technically logic.
But OSI, ATM, ISDN, etc shown us the market is not always logic.
At 03:02 18/11/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >> Let's assume ... that a large part of the Internet is going to
> >> continue to be IPv4-only. ...
you've lost me. where will growth occur? two variables: "nat?" and
"stack?" so, six possibilities:
nat? stack?
---- ------
nat v4
nat v6
nat v4+v6
nonat v4
nonat v6
nonat v4+v6
given the relative ease of acquiring v6 address space and the relative
ease of deploying v4+v6 end hosts and either v4+v6 campuses or v6 tunnels
in v4 campuses, ...
v4 will last as long as it's useful.
Yes. But may be more as long as there is nothing for better thant an "IPv4
with longer addresses".
Let consider there would be a Consumers Organizations and Users At-large
Committe (COUAC) as one of the IETF entities, sharing into the Internet
standard process in due form and time - my approach since long before IETF
started. What would they ask for would be probably termed totally
differently. They would probably talk of "smart-plug" (the origin of the
word "plug-in" I know is Dupont's Project Manager shouting in 1984 he did
not care about protocols and all he wanted was a plug, a smart plug if it
had to be, but a plug). And they would welcome the transition to a simpler
and ubiquitous "data-jack".
How they would be built, they do not care if it works, if there is no
hassle like registering, waiting, paying for this and that, and it can do
what they want, i.e. to support their everywhere/everyone to
everywhere/everyone relations in just (radio) pluging-in.
The least they want to hear is "relative ease of acquiring v6 address
space" even least than "relative ease to delpoy". This is what we think
great. This is something they do not even understand. They want a permanent
numeric ID they will be able to use everywhere. Just in powering up.
You know, just like a mobile number. (what we discuss here is antedelluvian
for them. Just like using an operator to phone).
This is for example what the French FCC is investigating in public
questionnaire right now, and I suppose they are not alone. A number users
will get at birth or creation (with additional ones if they buy
them); Their network national ID, warranted by their law so they can use
it in contracts, in life support services, in commercial relations. They do
not want smart solutions, they want sure, secure, simple, stable, real life
services for middle-aged house-wife, elders and kids.
IPv6 will win the day it will not be managed by IETF, not by ICANN, not by
RIRs, but by Govs. and will belong to the international law and treaties.
The customer is not the user. The customer are 192 States law makers. Show
Govs that IPv6 is a sovereignty field for them and not for the US Gov
alone, they will enforce it immediately (and this is simple to achieve).
Today they see IPv6 as another "USivernal" semi-obligation. The day it is a
free governement protected and accepted service, it will become Universal.
This is just what ITU is investigating : that will please them. All the
more than with its NGN work, it speaks a language they can understand and
which appeals on them.
Let face it, today ITU is far more promoting IPv6 than ICANN and IETF. And
this is good; as Harald puts it: IPv6 is a finished product to be managed
ouside of the IETF (and of ICANN IMHO, hence of IANA, now IANA has become
just an "ICANN function").
Just consider the difference of commercial impact between presenting IPv6 as :
- IPv4 with longer addresses
- structured addresses under TCP/IP
80% of the people buy magazines in kiosk for their cover. The IPv6 current
cover is not appealing.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|